In addition to fire and life safety issues and an increasing student enrollment, Newmarket school district officials and others have alleged deplorable and inadequate conditions at Newmarket Jr./Sr. High School to sell the taxpayers on the need to rally behind and fund new school construction.

The evidence and facts regarding alleged deplorable conditions and inadequacies of NMJSHS, like the alleged fire and life safety issues and enrollment projections, are, I believe, false distortions of the truth and reality.

Dr. Hayes refers to the 2004 facility analysis prepared by Team Design Architectural and Consulting Services to decry the unsatisfactory conditions of the current facility.

I obtained a copy of the report from the school district's website and analyzed its contents in order to better understand the seriousness and possible causes of the alleged deficiencies.

I am not by any means an expert in building or fire and life safety codes, however, I believe I am qualified to analyze the report and provide competent commentary for the public to consider.

The School District commissioned the study in 2004 to review and document the state of the two schools in the district.

The study appraised the facilities regarding handicap accessibility, fire and life safety code compliance, as well as the overall infrastructure, to include: Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing systems.

The NMJSHS analysis provided for life safety code compliance assumed that the existing facility would undergo substantial renovation requiring stricter code compliance, yet no such renovation plan was under consideration at that time.

Had team Design analyzed the facility for fire and life safety code compliance as an existing structure, instead of analyzing it based upon the wrongfully assumed premise that the facility would undergo a substantial renovation, any violations noted may actually not have existed.

The reports executive summary states: “Overall, the Newmarket Jr. /Sr. High School site appears to function adequately” and “The structure is in good shape with some minor cracking at slabs and walls, most likely caused by shrinkage.”

These comments are a far cry from the statements put forth to the public by school district officials regarding the state of the facility.

It is unconscionable for Dr. Hayes to refer to a 2004 facilities report as justification for a new school. Had those in positions of responsibility then and now properly maintained the facility and addressed issues when they arose, as required by law and common sense, there is no way they should still exist eight years later.

I submit for consideration, for those concerned, that if the school is in a state of disrepair that school district officials have negligently and purposefully allowed the facility to fall into this state by not correcting deficiencies contained in the 2004 report, and by not properly maintaining the facility as is required.

New Hampshire law, Department of Education rules, common sense, and the duties and responsibilities of school district officials and employees require the proper maintenance of public schools.

RSA 194:34 states “it shall be the duty of said town district to raise and appropriate each year … sufficient money …, to properly maintain such high school….”

The law even provides recourse for districts that fail in this obligation to properly maintain a public school. RSA 194:36- states: “Any town district failing to comply … shall be fined for such neglect.”

In other words, any discrepancies noted in the 2004 report necessarily should have been addressed years ago by school officials.

The recent alleged ceiling failures at the school are another perfect example of exploiting issues to build this new school.

While school administrators used this event to decry an old building in need of demolition, the reality of the situation apparently was a contractor who used substandard fasteners to install the ceilings, and a lack of oversight by school officials and building code inspector at the time the ceilings were installed.

Regarding adequacy of the facility to support educational objectives, as I have previously written about, Dr. Hayes wrongly bases the alleged inadequacy of the current facility upon school enrollment projections for 2020 which projects a student enrollment for grades 6-12 of 577 students.

It is important to remember that Newmarket residents have already previously spent millions of dollars for renovations to the original school to address adequacy issues. And with student enrollment having been decreasing for more than a decade, staff and students currently enjoy more space than previous staff and students have.

NMJSH may not be the prettiest of schools; but the school is adequate and does not warrant being abandoned or torn down.

The decision whether or not to build a new school is up to the voters; however, voters must have the unembellished facts in order to make sound decisions.